Purhépecha = Those who came late, the latecomers

Aiu-her-sa = Those who came after, posterity

Abstract

                The author examines the linguistic correspondence between the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs and the language generally known as Purépecha of Mexico. The origins of the Purépecha language and people are not known by scholars. Some students attribute the origins to the people of ancient Peru.  In this comparative linguistic study, there exist numerous comparisons between the phonemes and morphemes of Purépecha language with the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. The extent of the linguistic correspondences causes this author to suggest that some kind of contact existed between the two cultures prior to their known history. The coincidence of correspondences far exceeds the generally accepted idea that all languages are similar to one another within the twenty percentile range. If the linguistic record is reflexive of contact between these two ancient peoples, then the historical record itself must be reconsidered.

Introduction

            The Purépecha language of the people once identified as the Tarascan state of the highlands of Mexico is referenced in many different ways: P’urhépecha | P’orhépecha | Porhépecha | Purhépecha | Phorépecha. The meaning assigned to this word-concept is that of “those who arrived late”, inasmuch as the Tarascan people were latecomers to the area in Mexico in which they settled. They were an advanced people in metallurgy and it has even been said that they were the only undefeated people by the Aztecs. Scholars even go on to suggest that they may have overthrown the Aztecs had not the Spaniards done it first during the 16^th century.

            In my previous linguistic studies where the language of the Aztecs, Nahuatl, was compared to the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, it was pointed out that there would also appear to have been some kind of relationship between the two language systems. In Nahuatl, it became obvious that when the letter “L” was eliminated from certain word-concepts, then near cognates appeared with regard to the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs.  In the study of Purépecha, something similar occurs, as will be discussed in detail below. In Purépecha, when one eliminates the initial letter “P” or “J” of certain word-concepts then near cognates appear related to the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs.

            In the comparison of Purépecha with the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs patterns now arise regarding the omission of the initial letters “J” and “P” which reveal word-concepts from ancient Egyptian. In fact, the pattern is such that the ancient Egyptian word-concepts are relational to many Purépecha word-concepts with or without the initial letters “J” and “P”. In other words, the word-concept in Purépecha could derive from root word-concepts in ancient Egyptian with the initial “J” and/or “P” or without them. Numerous examples of this procedure will be presented below for their analysis.

            One is not looking for exact cognitive matches, but suggestive coincidences significant differences should occur within the dynamics of living languages, from changes occurring over centuries, if not millennia.  The search is for similarities, but when nearly exact cognates make their appearance surprise abounds.

            In revising then the glossaries the reader must remain flexible in perspective. The fact that two word-concepts from two different languages share the same/similar initial consonant and vowel may not be enough to convince ourselves about the possible common origin of these two words. But, in my mind, that alone is significant given the numerous examples that appear, well beyond the generally accepted twenty percentile mark.  One then looks for a similarity between the first two (three, etc.) phonemes of a given word-concept comparison.  Add to that the possibility that a letter K became over time the letter G, or vice versa, and one begins to understand the nature of the dynamics of language.  Even within ancient Egyptian, as will be seen from the glossary, there exists an enormous variation in the same word-concept. In the isolated tables of word-concepts, the order of the glossary is followed: first appears the phoneme and then morpheme or Purépecha; then, there appear the phoneme and morpheme of ancient Kemi in that order:

Purépecha-Phoneme | Purépecha-Morpheme | Kemi-Phoneme | Kemi-Morpheme

Note the expressions within ancient Egyptian in the previous examples: KARSHA, KHAB-T, QERF, QERSH, KHEBEN-T, etc.

            The correspondence between the initial phonemes in both languages in my mind is significant. And, one then must consider the initial phonemic comparison within the language of the ancient Kemi-Egyptians. One could attribute such variations to the different scribes who wrote out the hieroglyphs. But, one may also consider the possibility that those differences of graphemes and morphemes had significance for the phonemic expressions of sound. The question then arises, why would one make a distinction between accepting a relationship between Purépecha K’ARH- and Kemi KARF, as being impossible, when one is observing within ancient Kemi itself a similar distinction between Kemi KARSHA and Kemi KARF, or Kemi QERF, etc.

            For this study, I have employed various glossaries listed on the Internet for the Purépecha language and Budge’s dictionary of the ancient Egyptian hieroglyph’s cited throughout my linguistic studies. The ancient Egyptian language shall be referred to as that of the Kemi.

Commentary of the Glossary

            The first set of comparative word-concepts that presented me in this study of Purépecha ACHAATI (man) and Kemi’s ANKHU (man, citizen).  Such a significant word-concept referring to “man” shares an initial phoneme. This coincidence alone caused me to consider making a further analysis between the two languages discussed here. No sooner had I made that decision a most significant example of coincidence made its appearance. In Purépecha, AKUITSI means snake, serpent, while I found AKHUTI in ancient Kemi meaning “the two snake-goddesses, Isis and Nephthys”. This second example that I found was sufficient to convince to carry out this comparative study, which I now realize was an excellent choice of subjects.

            Immediately, one is struck by the linguistic correspondence between these two word-concepts and any notion of arguing a case of random coincidence between the two would appear to be a futile task.  When scholars talk about all languages sharing a 20-percent rate of similar word-concepts among themselves, I beg to differ. In my view, no amount of randomness can produce the kinds of similarities in phonemes and morphemes, and the subsequent patterns encountered in this study. Not even a monkey at a typewriter, typing till the end of time, would produce the second example cited above.

            The third example that occurred in my initial revision of the two glossaries was that of the word-concept “fruit”.

            With these examples one could imagine the comparison:

AMANHEJCHAKUA  |  AMM∙NETCHF-T

The word-concept for “fruit” in Purépecha, Amanhejchakua, then reflects the compound word-concepts of ancient Kemi, Amm-Netchf-t, meaning “fruit-nuts”. The combining of word-concepts in ancient Kemi, as will be seen below, easily allows for the construction of word-concepts in Purépecha. Such an analytical procedure is not one of randiom coincidence, but rather of theoretical construction.

The word-concept in ancient Kemi is often much like a root word, while the expression in Purépecha is a much lengthier word-concept, generally involving multiples roots (generally, at least two similar root words from ancient Kemi.

One may observe the relationship between AMBAKERANI as of the ancient Kemi word-concepts of UABU HERU.  With this example, the feeling for the nature of the comparisons of the two languages comes into view.

I now begin to realize that one has to take into consideration the endings of specific word-concepts in Purépecha, but yet look past them.

Chkuanderakua = a lie (noun ending)

Chkuanderani = to lie (verb ending)

Chkuanderari = liar (adjectival ending)

            Word-concepts of a single root/phoneme become difficult to distinguish the root from the particular case ending.

In Purépecha CHUTANI, to run after, one observes the root CHUT and the ending –ANI. In ancient Kemi then one finds the word-concept SATA, to run away, or, Kemi GEST, to run, to stride, corresponding to the Purépecha word cited. In Purépecha, there is ERAANI, to look, while in Kemi AR represents “to see”. One does not expect to find the final “-NI” phoneme in the Kemi words. In Purépecha, there is CH’ETI, tail, while in ancient Kemi, we find SET or SETH, tail. In Purépecha one finds ESKUA for eye, and in Kemi SQEB means the eye; and so on. So, it is necessary to keep in mind the different endings, but yet look past them. You may say that this is elementary, but remember, this is the first time that I am examining Purépecha language in detail.

            As I continue to examine specific word-concepts, the pattern continues to arise.

It were as though a pattern is established in Purépecha whereby a word-concept is constructed as of two distinct root words from ancient Kemi. In the previous case, the Purépecha word-concept for “good”, AMBAKITI, is derived from the word-concepts of AAM and BAQ, both referencing the meaning of “good” in a distinct manner.

The next example follows the same pattern, as do many other word-concepts that may be examined in the glossary at the end of this study.

            The fact that two distinct cultures on opposite sides of the globe happened upon the same/similar word-constructs in this manner of pattern-building cannot be assigned to happenstance.  When one considers then the word-concepts in the accompanying glossary this particular pattern should be kept in mind as it occurs time and again throughout the list. A little imagination and concentration is required, but the examples finally peer through the writing.

            Another example may be reflected in the Purépecha word-concept regarding a thorn or to prick.

CHEKAMITI   |   KHAAQ∙QEMA-T

            As I advanced in the examination of word-concepts between Purépecha and ancient Kemi, near cognates made their appearance.  Consider the following example, which was the second one after encountering Purépecha, AKUITSI and the Kemi word-concept AKHUTI, cited earlier.

Extract the consonants from the previous example and the following obtains: CHNT | SHNT. The interchangeability of CH and SH has long been recognized in linguistics studies.  The seventh plague of the Bible was said to be by hailstones/hailstorms (BARAD). Again, two cultures on the opposite sides of the Earth in ancient times each saw hailstones and thought of the same/similar word-concept. That to me requires a stretch of the imagination; especially since the word-concept is quite unusual in itself as a natural phenomenon. The Purépecha saw hailstones and thought “CHANOATA”, and the ancient Kemi saw hailstones, and thought “SHNA-T”, and neither of the two peoples had any connection between themselves. The next level of belief, above random happenstance, would be to invoke DNA as a possible reason for a similar choice of words; as though the selection were in the genes.

            If I had to choose a single example to argue against the established interpretation of ancient history and the idea that the ancient cultures were totally isolated from one another on this globe, this example (Chanoata | Shna-t) would probably be the one that I would select. When I first came across this example of linguistic correspondence between Purépecha and ancient Kemi, goosebumps raced over my body.

            But, as my studies progressed, I was to find out that another example of linguistic correspondence would again surprise me.  About one quarter through my studies, another pair of near cognates made its appearance.  If the word-concept for snake or that for hailstorms was unimpressive, then the identifier for the word-concept of “man”/”people” might surely carry some impact. The generic noun for “people” is an abstracted concept, not reflexive of a particular animal (snake) or thing (hailstones), but rather represents the collectively of people as a group/nation.

Again, one may imagine a composite word-construct in ancient Kemi: RET∙TAU, which is suggestive of the Purépecha IRETA. This represents another Purépecha single word-construct reflecting two (plus) combined word-concepts from ancient Kemi.

In purépecha one finds KANHHARHIKUA     for mask, face. And, in Kemi, KHENT means the face, while ARI EM QAA in Kemi means “to disguise oneself”. Hence, one may imagine:

KANHARHIKUA  |   KHENT∙ ARI EM QAA

The first word, then, means “mask”, while the second construct means essentially to disguise one’s face, ergo, a mask.

            In Purépecha, the word-concept for writing, official document (escritura) is KARAKATA, while in ancient Kemi we find: KHERI KHETEM, meaning “’under the seal’, said especially of orders seated with the palace seal”, according to Budge.

KARAKATA  |  KHERI KHETEM

A good exercise is to voice each one of the comparative word-constructs in order to get a feel for their similarity.  The glossary list is long and the word-constructs are many; too many to examine each one separately here. Once the pattern is recognized, then the reader may carry out these exercises.

            The negative expressions in both languages are similar.

Therefore, when one observes in Purépecha the expression NO KOSTI for the meaning of narrow, it may be understandable that this means “not wide”. As in ancient Kemi, wide or width is given as US, USEKH-T.

Indirect Linguistic Correspondences:

Omission Patterns Regarding the Letters “J” and “P”

            In this commentary, I will restrict my observations to examples concerning the initial letters of “J” and “P”.   Remove the initial J or P in some Purépecha words and there appear Kemi word-roots and word-constructs.  This feature alludes to a pattern of omission between these two languages. Naturally, one may conceive the functioning of this pattern inversely: add a letter J or P to some ancient Kemi words, and Purépecha makes its appearance.  The question remains to discern which direction was traveled in history between these peoples.

            The following examples show the fact that when one drops the initial “J” or the initial “P” in certain words in Purépecha specific Kemi word-concepts make their appearance.  These examples resemble the correspondences derived from the presence of the letter “L” in Nahuatl and the absence of the letter “L” in ancient Kemi.

            With regard to the word-concepts in Purépecha that begin with a letter “J” or “P”, I found significant patterns. Once I recognized that it was possible to omit the initial “J” or “P”, then searching for the ancient Kemi word became almost automatically. The pattern became extremely obvious with the word-concept JATATSIKUA in Purépecha, although I had begun suspecting the pattern earlier than that (remember, I am going down the list of words in alphabetical order).

Bed

            The original comparative consideration is then:

JATATSIKUA  |  AT-T

Naturally, it becomes obvious that the letter “J” may be omitted and one would obtain:

ATATSIKUA  |  AT-T

And, by eliminating the suffix for a noun, one would obtain:

ATATS  |  AT-T

a near perfect match of cognates.

            Let us examine some of the more obvious comparisons regarding the omission of the initial “J” in Purépecha and their correspondence to ancient Kemi word-concepts.

 To ascend

JAUARAKUARHINI   |   AR, ARI, ARAR

AUARAKUARH   |   AR, ARI, ARAR

Another example of the same pattern is to be found in the following pair.

To Bathe

JIKUANI   |  QEBH

Omit the initial J and suffix –ANI in the Purépecha word:

IKU   |  QEBH

Here is a most difficult word-concept because its root word appears to be only vowels; however, the same pattern appears.

Strap

JONGUARHIKUA   |  KHARA

ONGUARH   |  KHARA

To Know

An additional and similar example:

JORHENANI   |  REKH

ORHEN   |  REKH

See the list of similar expressions in the glossary in order to obtain a more complete idea for each one of these correspondences and how the pattern obtains. In this case, notice the Kemi expressions for REKHIT, REKHA, and REKHIU on the list.  Also, note the Kemi expression of RESH meaning “to know”: thus, ORHEN  |  RESH.

JORHENANI   |   RESH

ORHEN   |  RESH

To Turn

JUANTSIKUASTANI    |    AN, AN-T, ANN-T

UANTSI   |  ANN-T

Consider another example of a short Kemi root-word.

To Revolve

JUETANI   |  HETT

Now, again, eliminate the initial J and the suffix -ANI:

UET   |   HETT

Day

Consider one final double word example for the initial letter “J” set.

JURHIAKUA   |   HRU

URHI  |   HRU

Sun

JURHIATA   |   RA

URHI   |   RA

So, even if someone wishes to deny the existence of the omission pattern cited, with the Purépecha word-concepts of JOURHIAKUA (day) and JURHIATA (sun), we find in ancient Kemi the same/similar expressions.  Both the ancient Purépecha people and the Kemi people employed the same/similar root-words, in each case, for the word-concept day and the word-concept sun in a similar manner. Both cultures assigned and R(H) phonemic value to these two distinct word-concepts and employed them in similar morphemic expressions.

Day:

JURHIAKUA   |   HRU

Sun:

JURHIATA   |   RA

Obviously, one may substitute distinct root-words than the ones that I have chosen. The question is to understand the mechanism of the construction of word-concepts as of the root-words in both languages. The pattern identified, that works for many of the word-concepts that begin with the letter “J” in Purépecha, is the significant point in this analysis. The linguistic correspondences are not then seen to be mere random coincidences, but the product of a reasoned, conscious construction in language.

            Another pattern of omission may be observed regarding word-concepts in Purépecha that begin with the letter “P”. Let us examine a few of these examples.  In the following example the omission of the letter “P” and the suffix also makes its appearance, similar to what was observed regarding the same pattern for word-concepts beginning with the letter “J” in Purépecha.  Remember, not all of the Purépecha words that begin with the letter “P’” reflect the omission pattern, but they are sufficient to establish precisely a recognizable pattern.  Let us examine a few examples that do reflect the omission pattern.

Pain

P’AMEKUA   |   MEQEH

AME   |   MEQEH

To Lament

P’AMONDAKUARINI   |    AM

AMONDAK   |   AM, AMIU, AHAM

To Receive, to Carry

P’IRANI   |   RU

IR   |  RU

To Reap

P’IKUNTANI   |   KHAU, KHETIU

IKUNT   |   KHETIU

To Blow

P’UNITANI   |   NIFA, NIFI

UNIT  |  NIFA-T (NTHEHTHEH)

Sleep